On Thu, 24 Aug 2023, 04:38 Hongtao Liu, wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:08 PM Hongtao Liu wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:02 PM Jonathan Wakely > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, 06:15 Hongtao Liu via Libstdc++, < > libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Hongtao Liu > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:22 AM Marek Polacek via Libstdc++ > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:12:35PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via > Gcc-patches wrote: > > >> > > > Committed as obvious. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Less obvious (to me) is whether it's correct to say "GCC V13" > here. I > > >> > > > don't think we refer to a version that way anywhere else, do we? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Would "since GCC 13.1.0" be better? > > >> > > > > >> > > x86_field_alignment uses > > >> > > > > >> > > inform (input_location, "the alignment of %<_Atomic > %T%> " > > >> > > "fields changed in %{GCC > 11.1%}", > > >> > > > > >> > > so maybe the below should use %{GCC 13.1%}. "GCC V13" looks > unusual > > >> > > to me. > > >> > %{GCC 13.1%} sounds reasonable. > > >> looks like %{ can't be using in const char*, so use % > instead. > > >> > > >> How about: > > >> > > >> Author: liuhongt > > >> Date: Wed Aug 23 07:31:13 2023 +0800 > > >> > > >> Adjust GCC V13 to GCC 13.1 in diagnotic. > > >> > > >> gcc/ChangeLog: > > >> > > >> * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Adjust > GCC > > >> V13 to GCC 13.1. > > >> > > >> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > >> index e7822ef6500..88d9d7d537f 100644 > > >> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > >> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > >> @@ -22899,7 +22899,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree fromtype, > > >> const_tree totype) > > >> || (TYPE_MODE (totype) == BFmode > > >> && TYPE_MODE (fromtype) == HImode)) > > >> warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef > % " > > >> - "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " > > >> + "to real %<__bf16%> since %, be careful of > " > > >> "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and > %; " > > >> "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > > >> } > > > > > > > > > > > > Why does it need to be quoted? What's wrong with just saying GCC 13.1 > without the %< decoration? > > I'll just remove that. > pushed to trunk and backport to GCC13 release branch. > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- >8 -- > > >> > > > > > >> > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_invalid_conversion): Fix > grammar. > > >> > > > --- > > >> > > > gcc/config/i386/i386.cc | 2 +- > > >> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > >> > > > index 50860050049..5d57726e22c 100644 > > >> > > > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > >> > > > +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc > > >> > > > @@ -22890,7 +22890,7 @@ ix86_invalid_conversion (const_tree > fromtype, const_tree totype) > > >> > > > warning (0, "%<__bfloat16%> is redefined from typedef > % " > > >> > > > "to real %<__bf16%> since GCC V13, be careful of " > > >> > > > "implicit conversion between %<__bf16%> and > %; " > > >> > > > - "a explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > > >> > > > + "an explicit bitcast may be needed here"); > > >> > > > } > > >> > > > > > >> > > > /* Conversion allowed. */ > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > 2.41.0 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Marek > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > BR, > > >> > Hongtao > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> BR, > > >> Hongtao > > > > > > > > -- > > BR, > > Hongtao > > > > -- > BR, > Hongtao >